High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
ALSCHULER
GROSSMAN
STEIN &
KAHAN LLP
123456789
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
BLOCKBUSTER’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION
TO INTERVENE C 06 2361 WHA (JCS)
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP
Marshall B. Grossman (No. 35958)
William J. O'Brien (No. 99526)
Tony D. Chen (No. 176635)
Dominique N. Thomas (No. 231464)
The Water Garden
1620 26th Street
Fourth Floor, North Tower
Santa Monica, CA 90404-4060
Telephone: 310-907-1000
Facsimile: 310-907-2000
Email: mgrossman@agsk.com
wobrien@agsk.com
tchen@agsk.com
dthomas@agsk.com
Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant,
Blockbuster Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NETFLIX, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BLOCKBUSTER INC., a Delaware
corporation, DOES 1-50,
Defendants.
CASE NO. C 06 2361 WHA (JCS)
BLOCKBUSTER’S
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
FILE CLASS-ACTION
COMPLAINT IN
INTERVENTION
Hearing Date:
Dec. 7, 2006
Time:
8:00 A.M.
Courtroom:
9, 19th Floor
AND RELATED COUNTER ACTION.
Judge: William H. Alsup
Complaint Filed: April 4, 2006
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 91
Filed 11/16/2006 Page 1 of 10
Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc.
Doc. 91
Dockets.Justia.com
ALSCHULER
GROSSMAN
STEIN &
KAHAN LLP
123456789
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
i
BLOCKBUSTER’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION
TO INTERVENE C 06 2361 WHA (JCS)
I.
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................... 1
II.
THE COURT SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO DENY
LEAVE TO INTERVENE.............................................................................. 2
A.
Whether to Allow the Permissive Intervention Sought by
Dilbeck Is Purely in this Court’s Discretion......................................... 2
B.
Intervention Would Cause Delay and Prejudice................................... 3
C.
All Relevant Factors Militate Against Intervention.............................. 3
1.
The Case Is Significantly Advanced.......................................... 3
2.
The Proposed Class Action Would Be a Significant
Departure from the Existing Case.............................................. 4
3.
The Number of Possible Intervenors Is Also
Problematical.............................................................................. 5
4.
Dilbeck Can Seek the Same Remedy in a Separate Class
Action.......................................................................................... 5
5.
Intervention Would Not Benefit the Class................................. 6
6.
Opposition of Existing Parties Militates Against
Intervention................................................................................. 6
III. CONCLUSION...............................................................................................7
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 91
Filed 11/16/2006 Page 2 of 10
ALSCHULER
GROSSMAN
STEIN &
KAHAN LLP
123456789
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
ii
BLOCKBUSTER’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION
TO INTERVENE C 06 2361 WHA (JCS)
FEDERAL CASES
Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co.,
207 F. Supp. 252 (N.D. Ill. 1962)......................................................................... 6
Crosby Steam Gage & Valve Co. v. Manning, Maxwell & Moore, Inc.,
51 F. Supp. 972 (D. Mass. 1943).......................................................................... 5
Daggett v. Commission on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices,
172 F.3d 104 (1st Cir. 1999)............................................................................ 4, 6
Donnelly v. Glickman,
159 F.3d 405 (9th Cir. 1998)........................................................................ 2, 3, 4
Levin v. Mississippi River Corp.,
47 F.R.D. 294 (S.D.N.Y. 1969)............................................................................ 6
Montgomery v. Rumsfeld,
572 F.2d 250 (9th Cir. 1978)................................................................................ 5
National American Corp. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria,
425 F. Supp. 1365 (S.D.N.Y. 1977)................................................................. 5, 6
Orange v. Air Cal.,
799 F.2d 535 (9th Cir. 1986)................................................................................ 2
Our Children's Earth Foundation v. United States E.P.A,
2006 WL 1305223 at *3 (N.D. Cal. 2006)........................................................... 5
Spangler v. Pasadena City Board of Educ.,
552 F.2d 1326 (9th Cir. 1977).............................................................................. 3
UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Bertelsmann AG,
222 F.R.D. 408 (N.D. Cal. 2004)..................................................................... 4, 5
United States v. Michigan,
424 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 2005)................................................................................ 3
FEDERAL RULES
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23........................................................................... 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)....................................................................... 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b).................................................................. 2, 3
OTHER AUTHORITIES
7C CHARLESALANWRIGHT& ARTHUR R. MILLER,FEDERAL
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1913 (2nd ed. 2003).............................................. 3
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 91
Filed 11/16/2006 Page 3 of 10
Add a Comment